Ex Parte Sparrell

Patent Trial and Appeal BoardApr 26, 2016

11538208 (P.T.A.B. Apr. 26, 2016)

UNITED STA TES p A TENT AND TRADEMARK OFFICE APPLICATION NO. FILING DATE 111538,208 10/03/2006 22917 7590 04/28/2016 MOTOROLA SOLUTIONS, INC. IP Law Docketing 1301 EAST ALGONQUIN ROAD IL02 5th Floor - SHS SCHAUMBURG, IL 60196 FIRST NAMED INVENTOR Carlton J. Sparrell UNITED STATES DEPARTMENT OF COMMERCE United States Patent and Trademark Office Address: COMMISSIONER FOR PATENTS P.O. Box 1450 Alexandria, Virginia 22313-1450 www .uspto.gov ATTORNEY DOCKET NO. CONFIRMATION NO. BCS04054STARS 1626 EXAMINER LI, TRACYY ART UNIT PAPER NUMBER 2487 NOTIFICATION DATE DELIVERY MODE 04/28/2016 ELECTRONIC Please find below and/or attached an Office communication concerning this application or proceeding. The time period for reply, if any, is set in the attached communication. Notice of the Office communication was sent electronically on above-indicated "Notification Date" to the following e-mail address( es): USAdocketing@motorolasolutions.com PTOL-90A (Rev. 04/07) UNITED STATES PATENT AND TRADEMARK OFFICE BEFORE THE PATENT TRIAL AND APPEAL BOARD Exparte CARLTON J. SPARRELL Appeal2014-008076 Application 11/538,208 Technology Center 2400 Before ELENI MANTIS MERCADER, CARLL. SILVERMAN, and SCOTT B. HOWARD, Administrative Patent Judges. HOW ARD, Administrative Patent Judge. DECISION ON APPEAL Appellant1 appeals under 35 U.S.C. Â§ 134(a) from a Final Rejection of claims 1-20, which constitute all of the claims pending in this application. We have jurisdiction under 35 U.S.C. Â§ 6(b). We affirm. THE INVENTION The claimed invention is directed to a method and apparatus for determining availability of a remote party based on interaction with coupled devices. Spec. i-fi-1 1, 5-7. 1 Appellant identifies Motorola Solutions Inc. as the real party in interest. App. Br. 3. Appeal2014-008076 Application 11/538,208 Claim 1, reproduced below with the disputed claim limitation italicized, is illustrative of the claimed subject matter: 1. A method of determining an availability of a remote party, the method comprising: linking a communication device to a remote device associated with the remote party; monitoring the remote device for a predetermined set of activities initiated by the remote party on the remote device indicative of availability or unavailability of the remote party; analyzing the predetermined set of activities; and notifYing the communication device of the unavailability of the remote party if the predetermined set of activities of the remote device matches a stored set of activities. REFERENCES The prior art relied upon by the Examiner as evidence in rejecting the claims on appeal is: I Lenard , Angiolillo I us 7,023,980 B2 I us 2007/0198738 Al I Apr. 4, 2006 1 Aug. 23, 2007 THE REJECTION Claims 1-20 stand rejected under 35 U.S.C. Â§ 103(a) as being unpatentable over Lenard in view of Angiolillo. Final Act. 3-5. ANALYSIS We have reviewed the Examiner's rejection in light of Appellant's arguments that the Examiner erred. In reaching this decision, we consider all evidence presented and all arguments made by Appellant. We do not consider arguments Appellant could have made but chose not to make in the Briefs so that we deem any such arguments as waived. 37 C.F.R. 2 Appeal2014-008076 Application 11/538,208 Â§ 41.37(c)(l)(iv); Exparte Frye, 94 USPQ2d 1072, 1075 (BPAI 2010) (precedential) ("If an appellant fails to present arguments on a particular issue - or, more broadly, on a particular rejection -the Board will not, as a general matter, unilaterally review those uncontested aspects of the rejection."). We disagree with Appellant's arguments regarding claims 1- 20. Appellant argues the Examiner erred in finding Lenard teaches "notifying the communication device of the unavailability of the remote party if the predetermined set of activities of the remote device matches a stored set of activities," as recited in claim 1. App. Br. 9-10. Although Appellant agrees Lenard teaches the contact filtration agent removes the contact from the contact list when the remote party's preferences indicate that the person does not want to be contacted, Appellant argues the "contact filtration agent does not notify the communication device associated with the remote party of the unavailability of the remote party." App. Br. 9 (emphasis added); see also Reply Br. 32 ("The notification from the contact filtration agent to the presence server is not notification to the communication device that is enabled and authorized to monitor the remote device.") (emphasis added). The Examiner finds Lenard teaches the notification step when "the communication device is notified that the party is undesired to be contacted based on the presence information matching the record in the do not call list." Final Act. 4 (citing Lenard 6:66-7:18). The cited section of Lenard discusses the contact filtration agent 144 determining if it is desirable to 2 The pages of the Reply Brief are not numbered. All citations in this opinion are based on the first page of argument being page 1. 3 Appeal2014-008076 Application 11/538,208 contact a remote person and, if not, removing the person's name from the contact list 148 and considering the next person in the queue. Lenard 6:66- 7: 18. If a call is to be made, the information is sent to the contact processor 13 6. Lenard 7: 65-8: 11. The contact filtration agent 144, the contact list 148, and the contact processor 136 are all part of the dialer 116. Lenard Fig. 1, 5:36-38. Stated a different way, the Examiner finds a portion of a communication device-the dialer (the contact list 148}-is notified when the preset criteria for a remote person not being available is met. See Final Act. 3--4; Ans. 5---6. We are not persuaded by Appellant's argument that the Examiner erred. We agree with and adopt the Examiner's findings discussed above. 3 We find the dialer to be a communication device (see Lenard 5:36--41, 7:65- 8: 11) and it is linked to the presence server 128 and presence information 132 via Telephony switch/media server 112 and network 124 (Lenard Fig. 1 ). During prosecution, claims must be given their broadest reasonable interpretation while reading claim language in light of the specification as it would be interpreted by one of ordinary skill in the art. In re Am. Acad. of Sci. Tech. Ctr., 367 F.3d 1359, 1364 (Fed. Cir. 2004). However, we will not read limitations from the specification into the claims. In re Van Geuns, 988 F.2d 1181, 1184 (Fed. Cir. 1993). Although Appellant argues the communication device must be "associated with the remote" (App. Br. 9) or 3 In the Answer, the Examiner also finds the presence server and presence information to be part of the communication device. Ans. 5---6. As that finding is not necessary to affirm the decision, we do not adopt it and Appellant's arguments (Reply Br. 1-3) regarding that finding are moot. 4 Appeal2014-008076 Application 11/538,208 "enabled and authorized to monitor the remote device." (Reply Br. 3), that is not required by the claims. Instead, claim 1 recites "linking a communication device to a remote device." App. Br. 13. The broadest reasonable interpretation of linking is broader than argued by Appellant and is broad enough to cover the link over the network in Lenard. Because the arguments are not commensurate with the scope of the claims, they are unpersuasive. See In re Self, 671F.2d1344, 1348 (CCPA 1982). According! y, we sustain the Examiner's rejection of claim 1, along with the rejections of claims 10 and 16, which are argued on the same grounds, and dependent claims 2-9, 11-15, and 17-20, which are not argued separately. DECISION For the above reasons, we affirm the Examiner's rejection of claims 1-20. No time period for taking any subsequent action in connection with this appeal may be extended under 37 C.F.R. Â§ 1.136(a)(l )(iv). AFFIRMED 5